| Display title | Appeal to Inherent Nature |
| Default sort key | Appeal to Inherent Nature |
| Page length (in bytes) | 8,527 |
| Namespace ID | 0 |
| Page ID | 153019 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Number of subpages of this page | 1 (0 redirects; 1 non-redirect) |
| Edit | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Move | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Delete | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Page creator | m>Import Bot |
| Date of page creation | 21:27, 1 November 2013 |
| Latest editor | Robkelk (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 20:35, 9 August 2023 |
| Total number of edits | 15 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 180 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | A subset of Appeal to Nature; if something is naturally predisposed to a certain act or state, it must be accepted. Snakes bite, bears maul, poisons kill, babies scream, sociopaths torture, and Nazis commit genocide; but those are their natures, so we should not hold it against them. The fallacy is, of course, that the people making this claim are conflating inanimate objects, animals, and people. One of the three things I just listed has moral agency (i.e., the capacity to make value judgements based on an abstract idea of right vs. wrong and to be held accountable for those choices), and the other two don't. Guess which one. |